The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners appointed James Bradford Ramsay its general counsel. Ramsay's career at NARUC began in 1990. He previously served as a rates attorney with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Chris Duhon, the former president of Houston-based Additech Inc., was named vice president and general manager of GRI's pipeline business unit.

Michael R. Peevey, founder and chairman of NewEnergy Inc., resigned in January. His company previously was called New Energy Ventures.

Commonwealth Edison Co. appointed Nicholas J.

The Midwest ISO struck a deal with utilities from low-cost states, but it may backfire.

Why should low-cost states get excited about handing over a chunk of their utility assets to an independent system operator (ISO) or other qualifying regional transmission organization (RTO)?

They might buy in if the ISO offers enough of an incentive.

Read the RTO Rule. You'll see that it paves the way for transcos.

On Dec. 20, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hit the streets (both Wall and Main) with Order 2000, its rule on regional transmission organizations (RTOs). Ever since, utilities, investors and their advisers have been poring through the 727 pages of the document. They want to know, "What does the FERC really want?"

The question is not simply academic. On March 1 in Cincinnati, the FERC will open the first of five collaborative workshops to explore the RTO Rule and help the industry respond.

Do not mistake the FERC's professed neutrality on what works best for regional transmission organizations.

In its final rule on regional transmission organizations, known as Order 2000,[Fn.1] the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said it would not dictate to the electric utility industry whether and how to form RTOs. Don't be misled. The FERC claims to be agnostic,[Fn.2] but it still has a vision. And that vision leads inexorably to one conclusion. The preferred form for an RTO is the independent system operator, or ISO.

An interview with David A. Boger, Stephen D. Moritz and Joseph G. Baran of Strategic Energy Ltd.

The expiration and renegotiation of firm transportation contracts on the pipelines in North America is becoming increasingly complex. For example, TransCanada Pipeline ("TransCanada") in the past consistently renewed its expiring contracts for five- to 10-year periods at maximum rates. It also regularly expanded its capacity, requiring 10-year commitments two years in advance of availability.

Some partners turn to the quick sale to raise capital and dress up performance.

Analysts cite several reasons why energy companies might wish to execute a spin-off:

* To cover a failed merger,

* To raise cheap capital, or

* To boost valuation of a diversified company.

In fact, many newly merged energy companies will fit into this last category. No longer just power companies, they now own merchant generation, transmission, pipelines and telecommunications assets.

The top traders, investors and managers tell why energy convergence is still a pipe dream.

[Graphic tables included in the print version of the Fortnightly are not included in this electronic version.]

Energy investors seemed less willing in 1999 to greet electric/gas combination mergers with the kind of blind enthusiasm they tended to show in prior years.

Instead, they now demand proof that energy convergence really does create tangible value beyond the mere sum of the parts. At least that's the impression gained from talking with John W.

Utility restructuring seems to prompt more lawsuits by customers.

In Chicago, Commonwealth Edison Co. settles a class action lawsuit for a heat-wave outage, paying $2.5 million for items including "food spoilage," to customers served by certain city substations. In California, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. spends $8.3 million to resolve 98 percent of some 6,600 outage-related claims.

I know what you are thinking. We're in an age of deregulation, so the role of the state public utility commission is diminishing. You feel you can cut back on your regulatory affairs staff and concentrate on your business - on your marketing plan. Well, think again.

"Deregulation" doesn't quite describe what's happening today in energy and telecommunications. In reality, we are restructuring, not deregulating. And restructuring will raise a number of difficult issues that, like it or not, must survive review by your friendly state regulator.

"Sensible Approach" or Misguided Meddling?

The proposal by Reps. Franks and Meehan to sell federal power at market rates provokes conflicting responses from readers.

I am writing in response to an article written by Reps. Franks and Meehan entitled, "The Sensible Approach: Federal Power at Market Rates," published in the Nov. 1, 1999 edition of Public Utilities Fortnightly (see pp. 44-47). I agree that it is outrageous that electricity services for people in the Northwest are subsidized (regardless of the customers' ability to pay) by the rest of the people in this country.